[GNAP] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09: (with COMMENT)

[Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this document.

One question about the new IANA registries with Expert Review policy. They do
contain a Reference field, which seems to imply that a specification should be
publicly available. Experts guidelines are also given to check that the
definition for each registered parameter is valid, which I assume would be in
such a specification. However nowhere it is stated that the specification
should be public (and stable?).

You could do like in RFC 7595 and add some text covering the fact that the
Expert should check the specification exists and "if no permanent, citable
specification (...) is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD
be given." This gives more flexibility than Specification required, while
covering the requirement on the specification.